GaryRissling wrote:One of the most egregious aspects of this administration (not that the republicans would act differently), is their secrecy and voracious prosecution of whistleblowers combined with carefully orchestrated leaks designed to support a government approved narrative.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the production of "Zero Dark Thirty".

Personally I think this movie is highly irresponsible because as far as the public's access to the evidence upon which the movie is based is concerned; it can be a complete work of fiction. Perception is reality, and as such this will become the historical record.

The fundamental problem is that our government has again gotten away with offering privileged access to carefully selected individuals and getting a flattering story in return. Embeds, officially begun during the invasion of Iraq, are deeply troubling because not every journalist or filmmaker can get these coveted invitations (Seymour Hersh and Matt Taibbi are probably not on the CIA press office's speed dial), and once you get one, you face the quandary of keeping a critical distance from sympathetic people whom you get to know and who are probably quite convincing. That's the reason the embed or special invitation exists; the government does its best to keep journalists, even friendly ones, away from disgruntled officials who have unflattering stories to tell.

Oh, fer....... this movie had been in the works for YEARS before the bin Laden operation, going back to when W was president. In fact, the initial story was centered on the battle of Tora Bora which was in 2001. Upon hearing the news that OBL was dead, they shelved that project (which was close to its film date) and instead retooled it to the ZDT screenplay. Political favoritism? Obama's name isn't even mentioned in the film, nor is he even mentioned. They even rescheduled the release date to well after the election to avoid any charges of propagandizing.

The level of DOD and CIA cooperation on this film has been no more expansive or selective than those bodies have historically been with the media. It's a movie; no one (except me) throws their poop over the myriad inaccuracies in "Top Gun".

GaryRissling wrote:One of the most egregious aspects of this administration (not that the republicans would act differently), is their secrecy and voracious prosecution of whistleblowers combined with carefully orchestrated leaks designed to support a government approved narrative.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than in the production of "Zero Dark Thirty".

Personally I think this movie is highly irresponsible because as far as the public's access to the evidence upon which the movie is based is concerned; it can be a complete work of fiction. Perception is reality, and as such this will become the historical record.

The fundamental problem is that our government has again gotten away with offering privileged access to carefully selected individuals and getting a flattering story in return. Embeds, officially begun during the invasion of Iraq, are deeply troubling because not every journalist or filmmaker can get these coveted invitations (Seymour Hersh and Matt Taibbi are probably not on the CIA press office's speed dial), and once you get one, you face the quandary of keeping a critical distance from sympathetic people whom you get to know and who are probably quite convincing. That's the reason the embed or special invitation exists; the government does its best to keep journalists, even friendly ones, away from disgruntled officials who have unflattering stories to tell.

Oh, fer....... this movie had been in the works for YEARS before the bin Laden operation, going back to when W was president. In fact, the initial story was centered on the battle of Tora Bora which was in 2001. Upon hearing the news that OBL was dead, they shelved that project (which was close to its film date) and instead retooled it to the ZDT screenplay. Political favoritism? Obama's name isn't even mentioned in the film, nor is he even mentioned. They even rescheduled the release date to well after the election to avoid any charges of propagandizing.

The level of DOD and CIA cooperation on this film has been no more expansive or selective than those bodies have historically been with the media. It's a movie; no one (except me) throws their poop over the myriad inaccuracies in "Top Gun".

Really? Even Feinstein mentioned that the producers of the movie had more access to operational intelligence than she did.

And are you suggesting that the OBL raid is fiction? Or that Top Gun is a true story?

And I'm not arguing that this movie wouldn't have been made under a Republican. It's not about propagandizing Obama, it's about propagandizing the GWT - which Dems and Republicans both feverishly pursue. That said, I do wonder if, had this movie been released prior to 2008, if the torture scene and it's more or less fabricated relationship to the OBL raid would have been included in the film; and if so, would there have been the widespread acceptance of it from the left. That's a very fair question, IMO.

GaryRissling wrote:Really? Even Feinstein mentioned that the producers of the movie had more access to operational intelligence than she did.

And are you suggesting that the OBL raid is fiction? Or that Top Gun is a true story?

I'm not aware of any such statements, only that she disagrees with the portrayal of torture in the film. (She says all the evidence presented to the Congress by CIA and DOD suggests that torture not only doesn't work, but that the information used to capture bin Laden was developed completely independent of torture. The film's screenwriter says based on his interviews with operators, that torture is effective in certain circumstances, and that's how it's shown in the film.) The closest I can remember her getting to this was expressing a concern that civilian contractors might be more prone to loose lips than government employees and uniformed servicemen and women. (And I don't think that was specifically connected to this film, but rather a larger commentary on the proliferation of leaks in the Obama administration.)

And I am not suggesting either of the extremes you posit. The OBL raid certainly did happen..... but the film presents a fictionalized account of those events and the ten+ year search that led up to that night in Pakistan. TOPGUN was and is a real command in the U.S. Navy.... but the movie "Top Gun" is borderline farce, with its class trophy, and tower buzzing, and sending new class grads out to an aircraft carrier full of fighter pilots because only freshly minted TOPGUN grads are capable of fighting bad guys.

GaryRissling wrote:That said, I do wonder if, had this movie been released prior to 2008, if the torture scene and it's more or less fabricated relationship to the OBL raid would have been included in the film; and if so, would there have been the widespread acceptance of it from the left. That's a very fair question, IMO.

That's a very fair question.... but it's ignoring the fact that the 'left' is absolutely up in arms over the portrayal of torture in this film. Many, it has to be said, basing their outrage on anecdotal accounts of a film they have not yet seen for themselves.

I have not yet seen the film, altho I'm hopeful that I will be able to see it next weekend (it opens in L.A. on the 19th).

LANSING, Mich. (AP/WOOD) - The Michigan Legislature has enacted a bill allowing people who undergo extra training to carry concealed weapons in places such as schools and churches where they previously were off-limits...Under the bill, people who concealed carry in gun-free zones would have to get enhanced training beyond basic requirements and spend additional time at the gun range. "Open carry" in those areas would be prohibited.

Israel has been doing it since they had a massacre in the 70's. Only one person was dumb enough to try a shooting 10 years ago and was quickly killed with no students being hurt. Having people there to protect students makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking rights away from millions due to the insanity of very few.

GaryRissling wrote:Really? Even Feinstein mentioned that the producers of the movie had more access to operational intelligence than she did.

And are you suggesting that the OBL raid is fiction? Or that Top Gun is a true story?

I'm not aware of any such statements, only that she disagrees with the portrayal of torture in the film. (She says all the evidence presented to the Congress by CIA and DOD suggests that torture not only doesn't work, but that the information used to capture bin Laden was developed completely independent of torture. The film's screenwriter says based on his interviews with operators, that torture is effective in certain circumstances, and that's how it's shown in the film.) The closest I can remember her getting to this was expressing a concern that civilian contractors might be more prone to loose lips than government employees and uniformed servicemen and women. (And I don't think that was specifically connected to this film, but rather a larger commentary on the proliferation of leaks in the Obama administration.)

And I am not suggesting either of the extremes you posit. The OBL raid certainly did happen..... but the film presents a fictionalized account of those events and the ten+ year search that led up to that night in Pakistan. TOPGUN was and is a real command in the U.S. Navy.... but the movie "Top Gun" is borderline farce, with its class trophy, and tower buzzing, and sending new class grads out to an aircraft carrier full of fighter pilots because only freshly minted TOPGUN grads are capable of fighting bad guys.

It's an entertainment. Take it at face value, nothing more.

I have a couple of points of contention about the movie:

First is a complaint about how the past two admins have tightly controlled information the public they are purported to represent consumes. David Sanger writes a book- based on leaks, largely glorifying the GWT, and there's no problem; while Assange has to hole up in an embassy. {edit to add: Foreign Policy magazine even referred to Sanger as a "one-man WikiLeaks}

Everything is made classified; except what is in the admin's interest to release. As Panetta said "we'll work with you" for your article, book, news show, or movie. Just look at that Vanity Fair spread on Obama, which was hailed as giving an embedded journalist "unprecedented access" to a sitting president. But the final product was tightly controlled by the White House. Giving quote approval power to a subject, which I can't imagine having been acceptable to a previous generation of journalists, is now happily lapped up as long as it sells. This movie falls in the same category as the Vanity Fair spread; except it is far more dangerous as there is no real way to confirm or refute its voracity. (Again, I'm not Obama-bashing as there is no doubt much of this tradition started in the past admin)

{I had to go back and look it up - Feinstein made the comment I was referring to not about ZDT, but about David Sanger's book Confront and Conceal: Obama's Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power.}

My second complaint is that Bigelow and Boal walk on tightrope with regards to separating fact from fiction. Top Gun didn't carry the "this movie is based on actual events" disclaimer that ZDT has. IMO when you put that disclaimer in, producers do have a duty to represent key elements properly, and don't have the luxury of saying, "hey, relax, this is just a fictional piece of entertainment".

Israel has been doing it since they had a massacre in the 70's. Only one person was dumb enough to try a shooting 10 years ago and was quickly killed with no students being hurt. Having people there to protect students makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking rights away from millions due to the insanity of very few.

I believe Israel has armed guards posted at schools, which is different from allowing the people in the schools to carry concealed weapons.

Bigelow has stressed that she had “no agenda” when she made “Zero Dark Thirty.” Unsurprisingly, though, those who have defended the brutalization of detainees have already begun embracing the film as evidence that they are right. Joe Scarborough, the conservative host of MSNBC’s show “Morning Joe,” said recently that the film’s narrative, “whether you find it repugnant or not,” shows that the C.I.A. program was effective and “led to the couriers, that led, eventually, years later, to the killing of Osama bin Laden.” My guess is that this is just the beginning, and that by the time millions of Americans have seen this movie, they will believe that, as Frank Bruni put it in a recent Times column, “No waterboarding, no bin Laden.”

Israel has been doing it since they had a massacre in the 70's. Only one person was dumb enough to try a shooting 10 years ago and was quickly killed with no students being hurt. Having people there to protect students makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking rights away from millions due to the insanity of very few.

I believe Israel has armed guards posted at schools, which is different from allowing the people in the schools to carry concealed weapons.

Nope, they have citizen volunteers that did almost exactly what Michigan is planning. It has been a huge deterrent because you don't know who is carrying and who is not.

Israel has been doing it since they had a massacre in the 70's. Only one person was dumb enough to try a shooting 10 years ago and was quickly killed with no students being hurt. Having people there to protect students makes a hell of a lot more sense than taking rights away from millions due to the insanity of very few.

I believe Israel has armed guards posted at schools, which is different from allowing the people in the schools to carry concealed weapons.

Nope, they have citizen volunteers that did almost exactly what Michigan is planning. It has been a huge deterrent because you don't know who is carrying and who is not.

Ok, I see now. It seems the difference is that Israel has people there specifically to carry concealed weapons. They are volunteer guards. That doesn't seem to be what Michigan is planning.